Academic Discipline and Personal Finance Instruction in High School

Cäzilia Loibl and Patti J. Fisher

Despite public support for personal finance instruction in high school, its effectiveness has not been firmly established. The current study investigates instructional approaches as a reason for these inconsistent outcomes by comparing survey responses of business education, family and consumer sciences, and social studies/ economics teachers. The study framework suggests differences in the three disciplines’ identities and individual teacher preferences. Findings confirm discipline-specific approaches to personal finance instruction with regard to content, information sources, time investment, and teacher and student characteristics. In addition, a link emerged between college-based teacher preparation and teachers’ ability to respond to the challenges of personal finance instruction.

Key Words: academic disciplines, high school, personal finance instruction, teacher perceptions

Introduction behaviors (Peng, 2008; Peng, Bartholomae, Fox, & Cra- Public opinion has embraced the idea that personal finance vener, 2007). instruction in high school is key to alleviating consumer indebtedness, financial delinquency, and bankruptcy (Ber- A reason for these diverging findings may be found in the nanke, 2011; Bernard, 2010). Surveys and knowledge tests tension between the goal of the public mandate and its ac- of high school students have found that financial knowl- tual implementation in secondary school teaching. In many edge is lacking, identified how this lack of knowledge cases, the mandate to teach personal finance in high school may interfere with financial decision making, and offered is unfunded, vague with respect to academic department, suggestions about how policymakers may implement classroom time, and materials, and not part of the core cur- high school financial education to overcome this lack of riculum. The gap between the goal of the mandate and its knowledge through personal finance instruction (Mandell, implementation may undermine the anticipated outcome. 2008b; National Endowment for Financial Education, In the current research, we respond to this concern with 2005). As a result, 36 states have mandated financial liter- a survey of high school teachers and their perceptions of acy education in secondary schools (Council for Economic personal finance instruction. Analyzing teachers’ decisions Education, 2012). adds the high school perspective to the current discus- sion about best practices in financial education (Lyons & The academic literature, however, is inconclusive regard- Neelakantan, 2008; McCormick, 2009; Servon & Kaest- ing the effects of high school financial education on finan- ner, 2008), service providers’ background (Bone, 2008; cial decisions and behaviors. A groundbreaking study by Grinstead, Mauldin, Sabia, Koonce, & Palmer, 2011), and Bernheim, Garrett, and Maki (2001) reported positive ef- content selection (Beutler, Beutler, & McCoy, 2008; Spad- fects on savings behavior and asset building among young er, Ratcliffe, Montoya, & Skillern, 2009). adults receiving financial literacy education in high school. Other studies found no (Cole & Shastry, 2010; Mandell, The current study investigated high school teachers in 2005; Tennyson & Nguyen, 2001) or negative relationships Ohio from the three academic areas most likely to offer between high school financial education and financial personal finance education. The discussions surrounding

Cäzilia Loibl, Ph.D., CFP®, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University, College of Education and Human Ecology, Department of Consumer Sciences, 1787 Neil Avenue, 265K Campbell Hall, Columbus, OH 43210, (614) 292-4226, [email protected] Patti J. Fisher, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management, Virginia Tech, College of Liberal Arts and Human Services, 258 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24068, (540) 231-7218, [email protected]

© 2013 Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education®. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 15 the imminent implementation of a statewide personal fi- strong emphasis on qualitative aspects of personal finance nance education mandate in 2010 provided for good timing such as creating financial plans and budgets, selecting -fi to address three research questions: nancial services, and the influence of personal finance on career and lifestyle. In contrast, the “Financial Fitness For (1) Which teaching preferences define personal Life” program (Clow et al., 2006) is aimed at economics finance instruction in the three academic disci- and mathematics and has a relatively strong quantitative plines? By identifying preferences for personal focus in its lesson plans for saving, investing, and under- finance instruction for the academic disciplines, standing the stock market. Content may also differ within we documented the unique approaches of teach- disciplines, depending on teachers’ interests and familiar- ing this topic across different disciplines. ity with the subject. The financial literacy literature, for (2) How does mandatory personal finance instruc- instance, suggests gender differences in personal finance tion compare to elective personal finance instruc- instruction in that women tend to be more involved in tion? By comparing personal finance instruction decisions about day-to-day expenditures (Meier-Pesti & in mandatory social studies/economics courses Penz, 2008), while men are more likely to be involved to elective coursework in the two other disci- in investing and long-term financial planning (Lusardi & plines, a relatively stronger focus on investment Mitchell, 2007). The gender difference may be observ- decisions became apparent. able in academic disciplines, because the portion of female (3) What are the challenges faced by those teaching teachers is particularly high in family and consumer sci- personal finance? College-based teacher prepara- ences and low in economics. tion emerged as a key contributor for effective personal finance instruction. A concept closely related to subject definition is subject scope, which refers to the number of disciplinary areas Review of Literature involved in a school subject. Increasing disciplinary influ- Academic disciplines and teachers’ perceptions of their ence is commonly associated with broader scope and lower discipline create a context within which teachers work and consistency of subject curriculum compared to single- develop their professional identity (Giovannelli, 2003; discipline subjects such as algebra or physics (Grossman Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Ma & MacMillan, 1999). & Stodolsky, 1995). Personal finance draws on several The influence of a discipline is generally based on the val- disciplines, including economics, marketing, psychology, ue the school and larger community places on it in addition sociology, technology, and public policy (Tufano, 2009). to the discipline’s characteristics (Burch & Spillane, 2005; Teachers approaching this interdisciplinary subject may Siskin, 1994). More specifically, Grossman and Stodolsky feel a greater sense of curricular autonomy than teachers (1994) and, later, Grossman, Stodolsky, and Knapp (2004) of well-defined, more sequential subjects. Since personal identified five dimensions for describing academic disci- finance includes so many topics, teachers need to make plines’ approaches to teaching school subjects in secondary individual choices about what to include or not include. It schools: definition, scope, status, sequence, and dynamic. is likely that the topics covered in personal finance instruc- These dimensions are applied to personal finance instruc- tion in economics will differ from such instruction in busi- tion in order to examine how they may shape the teaching ness education or family and consumer sciences. of this subject. School subjects also differ in their status, which reflects Subject definition is a discipline’s understanding of the the values of the school and its community. Higher status content of the subject. Well defined subjects are associated subjects receive more resources and have greater influence with clearer curriculum content and standardized testing within a school. Subject status is based on metrics such as (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). Personal finance is one of role in core curriculum, relevance for college entrance, and the lesser defined and less agreed upon subjects, leading inclusion in state and district assessment programs (Gross- to a variety of perspectives on its content. In this situa- man & Stodolsky, 1995). The status of personal finance tion, content tends to depend on the academic department seems to be based on both subjective and objective compo- involved in teaching personal finance. For instance, the nents. Its subjective status is high due to the growing so- “High School Financial Planning Program” (National En- cietal and political relevance attached to financial literacy. dowment for Financial Education, 2012), which is targeted As of spring 2012, a total of 13 states required students to Family and Consumer Sciences, places a relatively to take a personal finance course and 36 states required

16 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 that personal finance content standards be implemented. to the so-called “integration code” subjects (Bernstein, However, the objective status of the subject is low with 1971) in which the gap between academic and everyday respect to secondary education metrics. No state has added knowledge is narrow. As a result, teachers are expected a personal finance course to the core curriculum, it is of to stay current in order to provide accurate and relevant little relevance for college entrance, and only 16 states information to students. In addition, they must carefully require student testing of economic concepts (Council for select information from the large amount of financial in- Economic Education, 2012). In many states, the personal formation available through traditional and online media finance mandate is unfunded (JumpStart, 2012). (Fox, Bartholomae, & Lee, 2005). The dynamic of the subject also requires teachers to revise classroom materi- The fourth dimension that shapes the subject-matter envi- als for personal finance more often than teachers of static ronment in which instruction takes place is the perceived subjects. For this reason, the regularly updated informa- or inherent sequentiality of the subject and curriculum. tion provided on web portals, such as fefe.arizona.edu or This dimension refers to the notion that specific content hsfpp.nefe.org, appear particularly attractive for personal must be covered before teachers can move to the next top- finance instruction. We assumed that teachers in all three ic (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). Common examples of disciplines examined in this study aim to stay abreast of subjects based on sequentiality are foreign languages and the latest developments. We expected to find differences mathematics (Cohen, 1990; Parke & Lane, 2008). Personal in intensity and perceived obstacles between the three finance instruction is commonly designed with a lower academic disciplines depending on teacher formal educa- degree of sequencing, as it is exemplified in the flexible- tion and the importance attached to the subject matter. module structure of the “High School Financial Planning Program,” which calls its curriculum a “collection” that Methods allows for the “flexibility to choose from a variety of 45- Data Collection minute lessons to design learning experiences that best fit The current study used analyses of an online survey of […] audience needs, curriculum requirements, and sched- high school teachers in a U.S. Midwestern state (Ohio) ule” (National Endowment for Financial Education, 2012). who taught personal finance content in the 2006/2007 However, teachers’ perceptions of a hierarchy of personal academic year. The survey addressed business education, finance topics may differ among the academic disciplines. family and consumer sciences, and social studies/econom- Social studies/economics teachers, who are used to a fairly ics teachers, because these three groups were most likely rigid sequential curriculum, would likely transfer this ap- to teach personal finance content (National Endowment proach to their personal finance instruction. At the other for Financial Education, 2005). After IRB approval was end of the spectrum, family and consumer sciences teach- obtained, survey invitation postcards and two reminder ers would be more likely to embed personal finance con- postcards were mailed to the three academic disciplines at tent in their instruction of consumer, human development, each of the 1,145 high schools offering 10th to 12th grade- and nutritional topics, implying a less hierarchical, more level classes (total mailing N = 3,435). This sample includ- modular approach to personal finance. ed public, public charter, private, and parochial schools. Because teachers’ names were not publicly available, the The last dimension, subject dynamic, refers to the degree postcards were addressed in a generic way to the “Family to which new knowledge emerges and concepts change, and Consumer Sciences teacher” (or “Business Education thus causing a continuing need to stay updated. Personal teacher” or “Social Studies/Economics teacher”) at each finance can be considered a highly dynamic subject (Bet- high school. The survey was conducted online during six tman, Luce, & Payne, 1998; Payne, Bettman, & Schkade, weeks from February 26 to April 07, 2007. Participants 1999). Technological and regulatory changes have led were mailed a $10 gasoline gift card for their assistance. to new financial products and decreased product life- times. Choosing among credit card features, the variety Of the 868 teachers who accessed the Internet survey site, of mortgage loans, and innovations in investment prod- which was hosted by a market research company, a total of ucts require more than a basic financial understanding 710 teachers taught personal finance in the 2006/2007 aca- in today’s marketplace (Willis, 2008, 2009). In addition, demic year and were asked to complete the survey. A total new online media have made significant amounts of fi- of 647 respondents belonged to one of the three academic nancial information and analytic tools available for class- content areas of interest, and those responses entered the room use. As this list suggests, personal finance belongs analyses presented here. The excluded responses repre-

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 17 sented a diverse bundle of Mathematics, Science, Technol- in the courses in which it is mainly taught, the content ogy, and Agricultural Sciences subjects, which could not taught, the grade levels, and the length, schedule, and be easily integrated under a common theme. Counting all meeting frequency of these courses. Teachers were also teachers who taught in the state’s high schools in the three asked to indicate how many students in the course would academic content areas of interest during the 2006/2007 receive a grade of “C” or above and how many were Eng- academic year (N = 3,849; this number is larger than the lish as a Second Language/English Language Learner total mailing (N = 3,435) because the mailing excluded (ESL/ELL) students, as well as the students’ race and gen- schools that had 9th grade, but not 11th and 12th grades as- der, the percentage of students expected to graduate with suming that there is little personal finance instruction in th9 a high school diploma, and the percentage expected to grade), a response rate of 16.8% was calculated. enter college. Part II consisted of ten questions assessing challenges involved in teaching personal finance. These The response rate is a conservative estimate because teach- questions examined teachers’ attitudes toward teaching ers could teach personal finance courses in more than one personal finance, preferred sources of information on per- academic content area and some teachers may not have sonal finance, and time spent to prepare for teaching per- been scheduled to teach a personal finance course during sonal finance in class. Part III consisted of 14 questions on the 2006/2007 academic year. Selection bias was examined participants’ school environment and socio-demographic by comparing survey responses to the full sample of teach- background. The fourth and final part of the survey mea- ers in the three targeted academic content areas. Data on sured teachers’ knowledge of personal finance concepts three key demographic variables - gender, age, and formal with a nine-question quiz. The questions in Parts I, II, and education - and membership in the academic content area III entered in the analyses are presented here. were made available by the state’s Department of Educa- tion. Means comparison tests showed that participants We used the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) pro- in the sample were on average 1.7 years younger (F = cedure to replace missing values in the data set used for 14.665, p < .000); there was also an 11% higher frequency the present analysis. This method, implemented by the of graduate degrees (χ2 = 9.064, p < .003). There was no expectation-maximization algorithm, applies MLE to the difference in the gender distribution of the respondents. task of imputing missing data values without recourse Comparing survey respondents to the statewide distribu- to the simulation involved in multiple imputation. MLE tion of teachers in the academic disciplines, fewer busi- makes fewer demands of the data in terms of statistical ness education (-14%; χ2 = 6.948, p < .008), but a larger assumptions and is generally considered superior to im- number of social studies/economics teachers (+57%; χ2 = putation by multiple regression (Garson, 2008). The MLE 27.327, p < .000) responded to the survey. There was no method, which assumes that missing values are missing difference in the number of family and consumer sciences at random, is now the most common method of imputa- teachers in the sample compared to the statewide distribu- tion (Little & Rubin, 2002). tion of teachers. Taken together, compared to all teachers in Ohio who were contacted for this project, survey re- Measures spondents presented a slightly younger and more educated The key metrics of the current study included five sets of group with a higher representation of social studies/eco- variables: personal finance content; sources of personal -fi nomics teachers and a lower representation of business nance information; time investment to prepare for personal education teachers. These sample characteristics were kept finance courses; course challenges; and student, school, in mind when interpreting the statistical findings. and teacher demographic characteristics. The sample sta- tistics are presented in Table 1. Instrument Development The questionnaire was developed using a mix of estab- Personal finance content. The survey instrument in- lished survey questions, questions developed for the par- cluded a list of 58 personal finance topics adapted from ticular purpose of the study, and questions suggested by the NEFE High School Financial Planning Program (Na- high school teachers pretesting the instrument. The ques- tional Endowment for Financial Education, 2007). The tionnaire consisted of 53 questions and was divided into topics addressed the following five themes in personal four parts. Part I consisted of a total of 20 questions as- finance instruction: (a) financial planning, goal setting, sessing respondents’ personal finance curricula and student and decision making; (b) budgeting; (c) savings and in- population, including the time spent on personal finance vestments; (d) consumer credit; and (e) insurance. The 58

18 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 topics, measured on a 1 = “do cover”, 0 = “do not cover” information sources. This division into five categories is response options, were factor analyzed to verify the sta- similar to the categories employed by Lin and Lee (2004) bility of the five original themes. Item loadings under and Blinder and Krueger (2004). Usage of the sources each factor in the rotated component matrix were then was measured with the question, “How frequently do you examined for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. Separate use each of the following to stay informed about personal reliability analyses were conducted for each topic factor finance topics?” Responses were rated on a 5-point scale for each of the three academic disciplines. Unsatisfac- ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often. The most popu- tory items were removed and the factor analysis was then lar personal finance source was mass media sources (ob- repeated with the remaining items. The procedure was taining a 3.01 rating on the 1-to-5 scale, SD = .798), fol- repeated seven times, after which the final factor solution lowed by interpersonal sources (2.69 rating, SD = .773), emerged, including 26 of the original 58 items. A total of Internet sources (2.63 rating, SD = .859), financial profes- six factors were obtained, thus extending and rearranging sional sources (2.39 rating, SD = .934), and professional the five original themes. A label was developed for each development sources (2.03 rating, SD = .849). Differences factor based on the mix of the items that loaded on the in source preferences among the three disciplines were factor. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin tests of sampling adequacy significant for three of the five factors. They were greatest (KMO = 0.914) and Bartlett’s tests of Sphericity (χ2 = for the use of professional development sources, followed 10,283.978, df = 378, p < .000) indicated that the data by Internet sources and mass media sources. were appropriate for factor analysis, explaining 70.5% of the total variance. Eigenvalues for the independent fac- Time investment. To examine teachers’ time investment tors were all greater than 1 and all item loadings were in in preparing for personal finance courses, four questions excess of the 0.600 threshold. Cronbach’s alpha reliabil- inquired about the time spent on four tasks: “When teach- ity coefficients ranged between 0.694 and 0.930. ing personal finance topics, how much time do you spend on each of the following activities, on average, to prepare The most popular personal finance topic was goal setting for one class period? Searching the Internet for personal (teachers covering goal setting = 87%, SD = 29.6%), fol- finance content; Reading publications about personal -fi lowed by budgeting (80%, SD = 34.3%), credit (70%, SD nance content; Talking to others about personal finance = 34.5%), taxes (69%, SD = 37.6%), insurance (63%, SD content; and Correlating classroom materials on personal = 1.6%), and investing (43%, SD = 40.5%). Differences finance content.” Respondents could choose from the fol- in content preferences among the three disciplines were lowing six alternatives suggested during survey instrument significant for all six factors. They were greatest for bud- pretesting: (1) no time; (2) up to half hour; (3) more than geting (means comparison test, F = 58.412) and invest- half hour, but less than 1 hour; (4) more than 1 hour, but ing (F = 53.182), followed by goal setting (F = 32.234), less than 2 hours; and (5) more than 2 hours. For data anal- credit (F = 23.109), taxes (F = 18.295), and insurance ysis, we recoded the responses into minutes using the in- content (F = 12.181). terval midpoints in addition to the two scale anchor values to facilitate the interpretation of the results. The most time Information sources. Teachers’ use of information sources was spent on correlating materials (M = 53 min, SD = 38.9 to stay informed about personal finance content was mea- min) and searching on the Internet (M = 50 min, SD = 36.8 sured with a list of 37 information source variables, in- min), followed by reading publications (M = 39 min, SD cluding broadcast sources (2 items, TV programs, radio = 35.1 min) and talking to others (M = 29 min, SD = 31.4 programs), printed sources (6 items, e.g., books, personal min). Differences among disciplines emerged for the time finance textbooks, general newspapers), Internet-based spent correlating materials and time talking to others about sources (13 items, e.g., email newsletters, information- personal finance content. sharing email listservs, browser searches), interpersonal sources (12 items, e.g., spouse, parents, friends, and ex- Course challenges. Classroom challenges were investigated tended family), and professional sources (4 items, e.g., with nine items derived from individual and focus group professional conferences, JumpStart trainings and re- discussions with teachers. The items were introduced with sources). The question inquired, “How frequently do you the question, “What do you feel are the major challenges use each of the following to stay informed about personal when you teach personal finance topics? (Check all that ap- finance topics?” Response options ranged from never = 1 ply)”. The items included: (1) I don’t have enough subject to very often = 5. Factor analysis produced five primary matter knowledge to comfortably teach it; (2) I don’t have

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 19 Table 1A. Sample Characteristics for Business Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Social Studies/Economics Academic Disciplines

Business Social studies/ Measure Range FCS All respondents education economics M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Personal finance content Teaching insurance 0-1 0.70 (.399) 0.65 (.407) 0.49 (.403) 0.63 (.016) (in %, F = 12.181***) Teaching credit 0-1 0.73 (.342) 0.76 (.304) 0.53 (.370) 0.70 (.345) (in %, F = 23.109***) Teaching investing 0-1 0.56 (.404) 0.25 (.341) 0.57 (.390) 0.43 (.405) (in %, F = 53.182***) Teaching taxes 0-1 0.80 (.336) 0.63 (.390) 0.61 (.369) 0.69 (.376) (in %, F = 18.295***) Teaching goals 0-1 0.85 (.313) 0.96 (.152) 0.73 (.395) 0.87 (.296) (in %, F = 32.234***) Teaching budgeting 0-1 0.86 (.280) 0.88 (.270) 0.55 (.431) 0.80 (.343) (in %, F = 58.412***) Information sources Mass media sources 1-5 3.04 (.757) 2.91 (.836) 3.14 (.769) 3.01 (.798) (5-pt. scale; F = 4.243*) Internet sources 1-5 2.83 (.821) 2.56 (.882) 2.44 (.819) 2.63 (.859) (5-pt. scale; F = 10.728***) Professional development sources 1-5 1.91 (.765) 2.27 (.907) 1.77 (.750) 2.03 (.849) (5-pt. scale; F = 21.206***) Financial professional sources 1-5 2.50 (.869) 2.32 (.958) 2.35 (.996) 2.39 (.934) (5-pt. scale; F = 2.597†) Interpersonal sources 1-5 2.65 (.780) 2.72 (.739) 2.72 (.824) 2.69 (.773) (5-pt. scale; F = 0.672, ns)

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p <.001.

a suitable curriculum that fits my teaching needs; (3) I don’t the top three challenges were classroom time (42% of re- have enough classroom materials, such as lesson plans, stu- spondents, SD = 49.4%), classroom materials (38%; SD = dent hand-outs; (4) I don’t have enough classroom time to 48.7%), and time to stay current (30%, SD = 45.9%). Except properly teach these topics; (5) I don’t see an interest in my for source selection and time required to stay current, the school administration in teaching these topics; (6) I don’t three disciplines differed significantly in their responses. see an interest in the topic among my students; (7) I struggle with selecting financial information and classroom materials Student, school, and teacher demographics. A number among the many available sources; (8) Teaching personal fi- of student, school, and teacher demographics were col- nance often seems tedious; and (9) I don’t have time to stay lected to provide a rich account of the setting of personal current with changes in personal finance. Across disciplines, finance instruction (see Table 2). Student population in

20 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 Table 1B. Sample Characteristics for Business Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Social Studies/Economics Academic Disciplines

Measure Range Business FCS Social studies/ All respondents education economics M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Time investment Time searching the Internet 0-120 48.75 (34.124) 53.89 (38.343) 47.79 (37.872) 50.67 (36.816) (in minutes; F = 1.793, ns Time reading publications 0-120 40.02 (35.020) 41.12 (35.752) 36.62 (34.363) 39.71 (35.169) (in minutes; F = 0.784, ns) Time talking to others 0-120 24.45 (27.462) 34.77 (33.966) 28.44 (31.460) 29.64 (31.487) (in minutes; F = 6.896**) Time correlating materials 0-120 51.62 (37.545) 62.02 (39.613) 41.89 (36.396) 53.74 (38.911) (in minutes; F = 13.622***) Course challenges Subject matter 0-1 0.05 (.237) 0.21 (.409) 0.20 (.406) 0.15 (.365) (in %; F = 13.383***) Curriculum 0-1 0.12 (.330) 0.25 (.438) 0.22 (.416) 0.20 (.403) (in %; F = 7.292**) Classroom materials 0-1 0.29 (.456) 0.38 (.486) 0.51 (.501) 0.38 (.487) (in %; F = 9.043***) Classroom time 0-1 0.33 (.472) 0.45 (.499) 0.55 (.498) 0.42 (.494) (in %; F = 9.992***) School administration 0-1 0.25 (.437) 0.15 (.364) 0.13 (.346) 0.18 (.388) (in %; F = 5.696**) Student interest 0-1 0.19 (.398) 0.35 (.478) 0.25 (.437) 0.27 (.445) (in %; F = 7 .777***) Selection 0-1 0.25 (.437) 0.32 (.469) 0.24 (.433) 0.28 (.451) (in %; F = 1.986, ns) Tedious task 0-1 0.11 (.320) 0.23 (.424) 0.17 (.384) 0.18 (.387) (in %; F = 6.169**) Stay current 0-1 0.26 (.444) 0.34 (.476) 0.28 (.455) 0.30 (.459) (in %; F = 1.900, ns) N 234 268 145 647 % 36.2% 41.4% 22.4% 100.0%

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p <.001.

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 21 each grade level, course meeting times, number of cours- Results es, teachers’ years of teaching personal finance, teacher Preferences for Personal Finance Instruction in Aca- participation in college-level and continuing education demic Disciplines courses, and teacher age were measured as continuous To examine the variables associated with personal finance variables. Instruction time and household income were instruction in each of the three academic disciplines, sev- categorical variables recoded for data analysis purposes eral binary logistic regression models were fit to the data into continuous variables by using the interval midpoints using membership in the academic discipline as the depen- in addition to the upper-scale anchor value. The remain- dent variable and the six topics, five information sources, ing variables were coded as binary (0/1) variables, as four time-investment variables, and the student, school, noted in the second column of Table 2. and teacher demographics as independent variables.

Examining the student population in all personal finance Business education teachers, the second-largest group of classes, the cohort size increased from Grade 9 to 12, respondents, tended to spend a higher amount of class- most students were White, native speakers, and there were room time on personal finance content than the other two about equal numbers of male and female students. The disciplines, which were teaching smaller personal finance high relative concentration of students in social studies/ courses in Grade 12 (see Table 3). Their personal finance economics at Grades 11 and 12 is most likely related to courses were more likely to be elective, multi-semester, “American Government and Economics” courses in Ohio and have a higher portion of male students. Business edu- high schools. These two subject matters are often taught in cation teachers had attended a larger number of college combination or sequentially and are likely to include ap- courses in personal finance and were less likely to be fe- plied content such as personal finance. Teachers expected male as compared with the other two academic disciplines. most students to successfully complete the course and Their personal finance instruction included less credit and obtain a high school diploma, with about 60% of their per- goal-setting content. They tended to use more Internet sonal finance students expected to enter college. and fewer professional development sources to prepare for class and spent less time discussing personal finance Teachers taught, on average, between one and two per- courses with colleagues. sonal finance courses per semester, and spent about 45% of course time on personal finance content. Most courses Family and consumer sciences teachers comprised the were taught in the traditional weekly schedule, meeting largest group of survey respondents. A member of this about five times a week. About three quarters of the per- group was likely to be female and older, and less likely sonal finance courses were elective, and about two thirds to hold a graduate college degree. This group had more were one semester long. About half of the schools provid- years of teaching experience in personal finance but had ing personal finance instruction were located in rural ar- attended fewer college courses on personal finance. Fam- eas, with the other half distributed in the suburban, urban, ily and consumer sciences teachers tended to spend less and central city areas of Ohio. About 90% of respondents classroom time on personal finance content. Similar to worked at public schools. Teachers taught personal finance the business education academic discipline, their personal content for an average of 13 years, had taken an average finance instruction was mainly conducted in elective, one- of two college courses addressing personal finance con- semester courses. They had a higher number of Grade 12 tent, and very few teachers had participated in continuing and female students in their personal finance courses, and education regarding personal finance instruction. About tended to focus their personal finance instruction on credit, two thirds of the teachers were women and had a graduate goal-setting, and budgeting content, devoting less time to degree, the average age was 45 years, most were married, investing content. Professional development and personal and the average household income was in the low $80,000 sources were most likely used for course preparation, and range. Two thirds of the student, school, and teacher demo- Internet sources were avoided. graphics differed significantly among the three disciplines. The largest differences emerged for teacher gender, the Social studies/economics teachers presented the small- elective option of the personal finance course, and the time est number of respondents. A member of this group was spent on personal finance content in those courses. likely to be male, to have fewer years of teaching personal finance content, and to have attended fewer continuing education events. Social studies/economics teachers re-

22 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 sembled family and consumer sciences teachers in the finance instruction from more than one academic disci- amount of time they devoted to personal finance content in pline. Teachers in both elective disciplines had more teach- their courses; however, their courses tended to be manda- ing experience in personal finance and reported higher at- tory and fewer in number. These teachers expected fewer tendance of continuing education courses. They tended to of their students to graduate from high school. The focus focus less on investing content, which emerged as the sig- of their instruction tended to be on investing. They liked nature content for the social studies/economics discipline. to confer with colleagues about teaching personal finance. None of the information sources seemed to play a particu- Comparing business education and social studies/econom- lar role for this academic discipline. A thumbnail sketch of ics, a few additional course characteristics emerged. Social the characteristics that differentiate each academic disci- studies/economics teachers reported lower instruction time pline from the other areas with respect to teaching personal for personal finance content per course, which were taught finance content is provided in Table 4. in mostly one-semester courses addressing a lower quality student audience. Comparing family and consumer sciences Comparing Personal Finance Instruction in Mandatory and social studies/economics, social studies/economics Versus Elective Courses teachers taught less credit, goal-setting, and budgeting con- Considering the diversity of personal finance instruction in tent and were less likely to take advantage of professional the academic disciplines identified in the previous section, development information and classroom materials. Fam- we now turn to the question of personal finance instruction ily and consumer sciences teachers spread their personal in mandatory social studies/economics courses compared finance instruction over a larger number of courses, which to elective coursework in business education and family tended to have a one-semester schedule. Compared to fami- and consumer sciences. A multinomial regression analysis ly and consumer sciences teachers, social studies/economics was fit to the data using academic discipline as the depen- teachers reached a higher number of male students in their dent variable, with instructional topic variables, informa- personal finance instruction and a higher number of students tion source variables, time investment variables, challeng- who the teachers expected to go to college. es, and the student, school, and teacher demographic vari- ables as independent variables. This model posits a linear Challenges of Personal Finance Instruction relationship between the independent variables and the log The relationships between academic discipline and the odds of an individual belonging to a cluster relative to a challenges of teaching personal finance were investigated baseline cluster (Agresti, 1996). For this analysis, the base- using univariate correlation analysis, and the results are line category was social studies/economics because it has presented in Table 6. The nine challenges identified in the personal finance content in its mandatory core curriculum study pretests show different patterns for the three aca- and, in Ohio, was suggested as the future home of personal demic disciplines. Six of the nine challenges were nega- finance instruction. tively related to personal finance instruction in business education, indicating a low level of perceived difficulties. The significant predictors of content area-specific dif- Dealings with the school administration about teaching ferences are presented in Table 5. Several characteristics personal finance emerged as the only significant associa- distinguish personal finance instruction in business educa- tion. Family and consumer sciences teachers’ personal fi- tion and family and consumer sciences from social studies/ nance instruction was associated with five challenges, with economics. As expected, social studies/economics offered student interest being the foremost challenge. Classroom personal finance instruction in mostly mandatory course- materials presented the greatest challenge for social stud- work. As a result, a legislative mandate for personal fi- ies/economics teachers. This is not surprising considering nance instruction in the social studies/economics discipline that an analysis of commonly used economics textbooks would assure a systematic exposure of students to personal documented the limited materials on personal finance con- finance content. Our findings also show that there were no tent (Leet & Lopus, 2003). The Council for Economic Ed- differences in the size of the student audience among the ucation has reacted by issuing updated “Financial Fitness three disciplines at the four high school grade levels. Rath- For Life” materials (Clow et al., 2006). er, personal finance instruction was spread across a larger number of courses in the electives. This indicates that stu- An open-ended question allowed teachers to report addi- dents have been reached in both elective and mandatory tional challenges they face when teaching personal finance personal finance courses and may have received personal content. Teachers added only a few new aspects not includ-

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 23 Table 2A. Student, School, and Teacher Differences in Business Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Social Studies/Economics Academic Disciplines

Range Business FCS Social studies/ All respondents education economics M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Student population Grade 9 0-150 5.70 (13.604) 7.71 (19.963) 5.94 (19.948) 6.43 (17.986) (cohort size; F = 0.910, ns.) Grade 10 0-150 7.86 (12.163) 11.57 (24.655) 8.83 (25.401) 9.21 (20.786) (cohort size; 2.041, ns Grade 11 0-255 13.41 (15.604) 12.15 (20.719) 19.95 (36.269) 14.20 (23.600) (cohort size; F = 5.407**)) Grade 12 0-310 15.80 (16.917) 15.81 (19.100) 35.86 (47.789) 20.19 (28.484)28.484) (cohort size; F = 29.570***)***) White students 0-1 0.86 (.225) 0.86 (.213) 0.82 (.2674) 0.85 (.228) (in %; F = 2.180, ns) Male students 0-1 0.49 (.192) 0.39 (.198) 0.48 (.20053) 0.45 (.207) (in %; F = 18.894***) Will graduate course with “C” 0-1 0.93 (.637) 0.94 (.634) 0.90 (.906) 0.92 (.685) (in %; F = 0.121, ns) ESL/ELL students 0-1 0.04 (.105) 0.06 (.100) 0.03 (.088) 0.05 (.098) (in %; F = 4.047*) Will graduate with diploma 0-1 0.96 (.075) 0.94 (.138) 0.92 (.144) 0.94 (.127) (in %; F = 5.990**) Will enter college 0-1 0.65 (.242) 0.57 (.273) 0.65 (.273) 0.61 (.266) (in %; F = 8.099***) Courses taught No. of courses 1-3 1.76 (.771) 1.81 (.772) 1.44 (.725) 1.69 (.777) (F = 11.805***) Percentage instruction time in 0-100 62.33 (34.353) 38.68 (25.482) 27.74 (22.696) 44.78 (31.639) main personal finance course (in %; F = 76.506***) Course layout Elective course 0-1 0.87 (.330) 0.88 (.324) 0.31 (.464) 0.75 (.430) (in %; F = 138.196***) One-semester course 0-1 0.57 (.49) 0.77 (.420) 0.60 (.490) 0.64 (.480) (in %; F = 12.514***) Traditional schedule 0-1 0.83 (.373) 0.80 (.393) 0.74 (.437) 0.80 (.394) (in %; F = 2.280, ns) Meeting times 1-5 4.88 (.554) 4.75 (.809) 4.71 (.814) 4.78 (.743) (no.; F = 2.952, ns)

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

24 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 Table 2B. Student, School, and Teacher Differences in Business Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Social Studies/Economics Academic Disciplines

Range Business FCS Social studies/ All respondents education economics M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) School demographics Rural school location 0-1 0.54 (.498) 0.56 (.496) 0.42 (.495) 0.52 (.499) (in %; F = 4.381*) Public school 0-1 0.92 (.260) 0.94 (.237) 0.80 (.401) 0.89 (.304) (in %; F = 12.216***) Teacher experience Years teaching pf 1-44 12.51 (10.023) 17.03 (9.761) 9.20 (8.451) 13.23 (10.067) (in yrs.; F = 33.917***) College-level courses 0-4 2.72 (1.385) 2.20 (1.348) 1.94 (1.533) 2.29 (1.452) (no.; F = 15.825***) Continuing education 0-5 0.55 (1.018) 0.84 (1.147) 0.37 (.695) 0.63 (1.048) (no.; F = 11.355***) Teacher demographics Gender 0-1 0.61 (.487) 0.99 (.086) 0.26 (.441) 0.67 (.47018) (% female; F = 197.480***) Age 22-76 44.12 (9.53) 47.83 (9.496) 40.24 (10.684) 44.59 (10.319) (in yrs.; F = 29.155***) Education 0-1 0.72 (.446) 0.66 (.473) 0.61 (.488) 0.66 (.471) (% MS, Ph.D.; F = 2.736, ns) Marital status 0-1 0.76 (.422) 0.82 (.381) 0.78 (.411) 0.80 (.399) (% married; F = 1.234, ns) Household income $10k- $80,952 $89,464 $72,926 $82,679 (in dollars; F = 12.565***) $200k ($29,936) ($35,198) ($32,041) ($33,252)

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

ed in our list of nine challenges. Business education teach- The results of an OLS regression analysis are presented in ers mentioned the elective status of the courses that tended Table 7, which was conducted in order to investigate the to attract lower enrollment and lack of financial resources predictors of teacher challenges by regressing the number to purchase technology equipment, for instance, to offer of challenges on the six instructional topic variables, five market simulations. Family and consumer sciences teachers information source variables, four time investment vari- addressed the variety of teaching methods to teach personal ables, and the student, school, and teacher demographic finance, a lack of suitable continuing education offerings for variables. We found teacher preparation through college- teachers, and the diverse student population in these cours- level courses in personal finance to be the most important es. Social studies/economics teachers noted that personal predictor of teaching challenges: the more college courses finance might not be a part of the school district curriculum. taken, the fewer challenges faced by teachers. Apart from

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 25 Table 3. Three Binary Logistic Regression Models for Predicting Personal Finance Instruction in Business Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Social Studies/Economics Academic Disciplines

Business education FCS Social studies/economics β β β Years teaching personal finance 0.040* -0.070* Number of personal finance college courses 0.270** -0.248* Number of personal finance CEUs -0.689** Female teacher -0.975** 5.493*** -2.380*** Teacher age 0.044* Teacher graduate degree 0.435† -1.080** Number of courses -0.545* Instruction Time 0.042*** -0.037*** -0.042*** Students in Grade 10 0.014† Students in Grade 12 -0.012* 0.014* Elective course 1.535*** 1.073* -3.067*** One-semester course -1.598*** 2.081*** Male students 0.015** -0.025** Students will graduate from high school 0.026† -0.037† Rural school location 0.518† Teaching credit -1.336** 2.225*** Teaching investing -2.429*** 2.319*** Teaching taxes 0.709† Teaching goals -1.280** 3.764*** Teaching budgeting 1.323* -0.989† Internet sources 0.338* -0.423* Professional development sources -0.578** 0.700** Personal sources 0.510* Time needed to read publications -0.010† Time needed to talk to others -0.013** 0.010† 0.021** Time needed to correlate materials -0.012† Constant -4.917** -13.349*** 10.174*** χ2 324.848 567.490 456.891 -2 log likelihood 521.910 310.304 231.597 Nagelkerke R2 0.541 0.787 0.773

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Note. Only significant variables are shown.

26 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 Table 4. Thumbnail Sketches of Academic Disciplines

Business education Family and consumer sciences Social studies/economics Had attended a higher number More years teaching personal Fewer years teaching personal of college courses on personal finance finance, had attended fewer finance continuing education events on Had taken fewer college courses personal finance Less likely female teachers on personal finance Most likely male teachers Devote more time to personal Most likely female teachers, older finance content in their courses Personal finance taught in fewer Less likely holding a graduate courses, devoting less time to Teach personal finance fewer high college degree personal finance content school seniors Spend less time on personal Most likely to teach personal Personal finance most likely an finance content in their courses finance in mandatory courses elective, yearlong course More likely teaching personal Focus instruction on investing More male students in personal finance in Grade 12 finance courses Spend the most time talking to Elective courses, one-semester others about personal finance Less likely to teach credit, goal- long, mostly female students content when preparing courses setting More likely to teach credit, goal- Tend to use Internet sources to setting, budgeting prepare personal finance courses; Less likely to teach investing fewer professional development sources Use professional development and personal information sources Spend less time talking about to prepare personal finance personal finance content to others instruction Make less use of Internet sources

this, fewer challenges were associated with the business Second, the setup of courses in which personal finance is education discipline, with teachers teaching investing, taught was found to vary with respect to the course elec- devoting more time to teaching personal finance in their tive or mandatory status, number of courses in which per- courses, and having a higher quality student body. sonal finance is taught, and the time devoted to personal finance content in these courses. These results support the Discussion different conceptualizations of subject scope among the Academic Disciplines Unique in their Approaches to three academic disciplines. In particular, the elective in- Personal Finance Instruction struction in business education and family and consumer The first research question addressed the choices that de- sciences tended to allow for more time-intensive instruc- fine personal finance instruction within the three academic tion, which was reflected in the greater number of per- disciplines that primarily teach it. The findings supported sonal finance topics addressed by these two disciplines. the notion in the educational literature that academic dis- Third, the student audience differed with respect to gen- ciplines are unique in their approaches to personal finance der, student quality, and cohort size. These findings point instruction in a variety of aspects (Grossman & Stodolsky, toward varying degrees of status among the academic 1994, 1995). First, each discipline seemed to have devel- disciplines with respect to personal finance instruction. oped specific subject definitions expressed in their teach- Business education teachers tended to be particularly ing foci and preferred sources of classroom information successful in attracting higher quality students and had a and materials. An example is the emphasis on investing majority of male students. Finally, teachers in the three content in social studies/economics.

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 27 Table 5. Multinomial Regression Analysis Comparing Business Education and Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers to Social Studies/Economics Teachers

Business FCS

β β Intercept -11.462*** -20.802*** Teaching credit 2.628** Teaching investing -1.898** -3.853*** Teaching goals 3.567*** Teaching budgeting 1.861* Mass media sources -0.624† Professional development sources 0.910* Personal sources 0.675† Time needed talking to others -0.027** Time needed correlating materials 0.014† Number of personal finance courses 0.547† 0.712* Instruction time devoted to personal finance content 0.052*** Students in Grade 10 0.023† Elective course 3.095*** 3.041*** One-semester course -1.201** 1.151* Male students -0.036** Students will graduate from high school 0.053* Students will enter college -0.022* Years teaching personal finance 0.070* 0.104** Number of CEUs 0.628* 0.713* Female teacher 1.276** 6.492*** Teacher education (graduate degree = 1) -1.160*

χ2 896.733 -2 log likelihood 485.368 Nagelkerke R2 0.850

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p. < .01. ***p < .001. Note. Only significant variables shown; Reference category is: Social Studies/Economics teachers.

28 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 Table 6. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients Between the Academic Disciplines and Variables Associated with Teacher Challenges

Business education FCS Social studies/economics Pearson’s r Pearson’s r Pearson’s r Subject-matter -0.200*** 0.131** 0.075† Curriculum -0.145*** 0.119** Classroom materials -0.130** 0.146*** Classroom time -0.156*** 0.133** School administration 0.131** -0.068† -0.070† Student interest -0.130** 0.146*** Selection 0.078* Tedious task -0.125** 0.122** Stay current 0.075†

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Note. Only significant variables are shown.

Table 7. OLS Regression Model for Predicting the Number of Challenges Encountered When Teaching Personal Finance

Unstandardized β p (Constant) 4.032 0.000 Business education discipline -0.429 0.027 Teaching Investing -0.482 0.019 Instruction time -0.007 0.017 Percent students will enter college -0.008 0.004 Number of college-level courses on personal finance content -0.141 0.003 Number of continuing education courses or workshops -0.124 0.069

R2 / Adjusted R2 0.191 / 0.134 F 3.320***

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Note. Only significant variables are shown.

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 29 disciplines were identifiable with respect to their college clear that this link is particularly strong for business edu- preparation, experience, gender, age, and formal educa- cation. Six of the nine challenges listed were significantly tion level. Telling is the finding that the mostly female, and negatively related to this academic discipline. In con- older, lower educated family and consumer sciences trast, five significant challenges were identified for family teachers were more hesitant to teach investing content and consumer sciences teachers and two for social stud- than other personal finance content, which supports find- ies/economics teachers when controlling for the full set ings of gender differences in financial decisions and be- of study variables to determine the extent of teacher chal- haviors persisting beyond the private sphere (Niessen & lenges in personal finance instruction. Teaching investing Ruenzi, 2006). Taken together, the results for our first re- content, time-intensive instruction, having higher quality search question suggested a diverse, multifaceted portrait students, and college-level preparation were metrics that of personal finance instruction in high schools shaped by distinguished business education from the other two dis- the academic discipline in which it is taught. ciplines and, as the regression results show, were closely related to teacher preparation. The lack of significance of Personal Finance Instruction in Elective Courses Is the number of years the respondents taught personal fi- More Student Focused nance speaks for little relief with respect to the main chal- Our second research question touched on the policy dis- lenges, such as time constraints, the quest for teaching cussions about housing personal finance instruction in the, materials, and efforts to stay current on personal finance mostly mandatory, social studies/economics discipline. content. While the quality of the student body, measured The findings suggest that a relocation of personal finance as the percentage of students expected by their teachers to instruction from elective business education and family enter college, which is a metric chosen to reflect academic and consumer sciences courses to mandatory social stud- ability, was found to reduce teacher challenges, the condi- ies/economics courses would affect several aspects of this tions in the four grade levels did not affect it. This finding subject. First, the differences in subject definition could re- may suggest that the challenges of personal finance in- sult in a strengthened focus on investing content at the cost struction are more closely related to students’ general intel- of instruction in goal setting, budgeting, and credit. lect than their financial interest and experiences. Although cohort size increased from Grade 9 to 12 in response to the It has been suggested that the “Stock Market Game” used greater usefulness of personal finance content to students in social studies/economics courses has been effective in nearing the age of majority, our findings indicate that a teaching personal finance concepts as it has become very potential greater student interest does not reduce teaching popular (Harter & Harter, 2010). Second, the reduced sub- challenges in a manner similar to student quality (Auwart- ject scope would likely limit instruction to fewer courses er & Aruguete, 2008). This finding supports the notion for- with less instruction time devoted to personal finance con- warded by Mandell (2008a) that student grade point aver- tent. On the other hand, the social studies/economics cours- age may serve as a surrogate measure for financial literacy. es reached a larger number of male students and students who were expected to enter college, which may indirectly Study Limitations improve the degree of status of personal finance among the While we have employed best survey practices to safe- school subjects. Finally, the larger number of CEUs among guard from any pitfalls in data collection and analysis, business education and family and consumer sciences teach- the reader should be made aware of two potential biases. ers should motivate social studies/economics disciplines to First, both authors come from one of the three disciplines: increase their continuing education offerings for their teach- family and consumer sciences. While it was attempted to ers to respond to the subject’s dynamic nature. provide an objective analysis, there may have been unin- tended biases that influenced the design and implementa- Perception of Challenges in Personal Finance Instruc- tion of this study. A second bias relates to the fact that the tion Linked to Teacher Preparation data were from a single state. While it is generally advised The analyses addressed the question of whether and how to aim for a diverse sample, the intensive discussions the challenges of personal finance instruction differ among among consumer advocates, policy makers, and research- the three academic disciplines. In this respect, a link ers surrounding the implementation of a statewide personal emerged between college-based teacher preparation and finance education mandate in Ohio in 2010 provided for teachers’ ability to respond to the challenges of personal particularly good grounds for thoughtful survey responses. finance instruction. Even at the univariate level, it became We also expected a higher response rate from teachers. It

30 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 would have been difficult to find comparable conditions given to the strength of each academic discipline and co- in other states at this point in time. Findings of the cur- operation enabled. rent study were used to inform policy makers’ discussions about the implementation of the mandate at the Ohio De- References partment of Education and the Ohio Commission on Per- Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data sonal Finance Education. analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 205-216. Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of stu- Conclusion dent gender and socioeconomic status on teacher The current study investigated differences in teaching a perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, traditionally elective subject, personal finance, among 101(4), 242-246. three different academic disciplines. Our findings respond Bernanke, B. S. (2011). Statement by Chairman Bernanke to subject matter scholarship’s call for using the “subject- on financial literacy (Vol. April 20). Washington: matter lens” in assessing teaching outcomes (Burch & Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Spillane, 2005; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). Although Bernard, T. S. (2010, April 10). Working financial literacy our study focused on a limited number of choice items, in with the three R’s. The New York Times (New such as instructional content, information sources, and York edition). time investment, the results indicated significant academic Bernheim, B. D., Garrett, D. M., & Maki, D. M. (2001). differences that may also affect other teaching choices. Education and saving: The long-term effects of high For example, a worthwhile topic for further investigation school financial curriculum mandates.Journal of would be the differences in teaching practices among the Public Economics, 80(3), 435-465. disciplines. Mandell (2008a) suggested that highly inter- Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing active teaching methods, such as the use of stock market of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), simulations, tend to have a particularly positive influence Knowledge and control (pp. 47-69). London: on student understanding of personal finance concepts. Macmillan. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Con- The public mandate for personal finance instruction aims structive consumer choice processes. Journal of for the high school classroom to provide students with the Consumer Research, 25(December), 187-217. Beutler, I., Beutler, L., & McCoy, J. K. (2008). Money as-Money as- “skills and knowledge needed to make sound decisions pirations about living well: Middle school student managing their own personal finances” (Rutan, 2008, p. 4). perceptions. Journal of Financial Counseling and Our findings suggest, however, that the practice of teach- Planning, 19(1), 44-60. ing this subject encourages academic disciplines to inter- Blinder, A. S., & Krueger, A. B. (2004). What does the pret personal finance instruction in a variety of ways. As a public know about economic policy, and how does it result, teachers in the three main disciplines reach a highly know it? New York: National Bureau of Economic diverse student audience and skillfully embed personal Research. finance subject matter in a variety of courses. Formal col- Bone, P. F. (2008). Toward a general model of consumer lege preparation in personal finance emerged as the stron- empowerment and welfare in financial markets with gest predictor for successful personal finance instruction. an application to mortgage servicers. Journal of Other indicators were student quality, classroom time, an Consumer Affairs, 42(Summer), 165-188. interest in teaching investing, and being a teacher in busi- Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2005). How subjects matter in ness education. district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educa- As state mandates related to personal finance instruction tional Change, 6, 51-76. tend to hand implementation decisions to the local level, Clow, J. E., Hopkins, M. C., Wright, D. K., Suiter, M. it can be expected that a mandate requiring placing the C., Flowers, B., Gallaher, S. S., … & Schug, M. C. subject under the umbrella of one specific discipline will (2006). Financial fitness for life. New York: National redirect its instruction, may well bias the education and, Council on Economic Education. removed from its managerial or social context, hamper its Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The usefulness for high school graduates. Our findings sug- case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and gest that the quality of personal finance instruction in high Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329. schools may be substantially improved if consideration is

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 31 Cole, S., & Shastry, G. K. (2010). Is high school the right Lyons, A. C., & Neelakantan, U. (2008). Potential and time to teach self-control? The effect of financial ed- pitfalls of applying theory to the practice of fi- ucation and mathematics courses on savings behav- nancial education. Journal of Consumer Affairs, ior. Cambridge: Harvard Business School. 42(Spring), 106-112. Council for Economic Education. (2012). Survey of the Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of work- states 2011: The state of economic and personal fi- place conditions on teachers’ job satisfaction. Jour- nance education in our nation’s schools. New York. nal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39-48. Fox, J., Bartholomae, S., & Lee, J. (2005). Building the Mandell, L. (2005). Financial literacy - Does it matter? case for financial education.The Journal of Consum- Consumer Interest Annual, 51, n.p. er Affairs, 39(Summer), 195-214. Mandell, L. (2008a). 2008 JumpStart financial literacy Garson, G. D. (2008). Data imputation for missing values. surveys of high school seniors and college students. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. In Research Seminar on Financial Education. Cleve- Giovannelli, M. (2003). Relationship between reflective land: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. disposition toward teaching and effective teaching. Mandell, L. (2008b). Press release announcing results Journal of Educational Research, 96(5), 293-310. of 2008 high and college survey. Washington: Grinstead, M. L., Mauldin, T., Sabia, J. J., Koonce, J., & Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. Palmer, L. (2011). Saving for success: Financial edu- McCormick, M. H. (2009). The effectiveness of youth fi- cation and savings goal achievement in Individual nancial education: A review of the literature. Journal Development Accounts. Journal of Financial Coun- of Financial Counseling and Planning, 20(1), 70-83. seling and Planning, 22(2), 28-40. Meier-Pesti, K., & Penz, E. (2008). Sex or gender? Expand- Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Consider- ing the sex-based view by introducing masculinity ations of content and the circumstances of secondary and femininity as predictors of financial risk taking. school teaching. Review of Research in Education, Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 180-196. 20, 179-221. National Endowment for Financial Education. (2005). Rec- Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as con- ommendations for the NEFE High School Financial text: The role of school subjects in secondary school Planning Program®: Teacher response form results. teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11. Denver. Grossman, P. L., Stodolsky, S. S., & Knapp, M. S. National Endowment for Financial Education. (2007). (2004). Making subject matter part of the equa- NEFE High School Financial Planning Program®. tion: The intersection of policy and content. Seattle: Denver. University of Washington Center for the Study of National Endowment for Financial Education. (2012). Teaching and Policy. NEFE High School Financial Planning Program®: Harter, C., & Harter, J. F. R. (2010). Is financial literacyliteracy Program content. Denver. improved by participating in a Stock Market Game? Niessen, A., & Ruenzi, S. (2006). Sex matters: Gender and Journal for Economic Educators, 10(1), 21-32. mutual funds. Cologne, Germany: Centre for Finan- JumpStart. (2012). State financial education requirements. cial Research. Washington: JumpStart Coalition for Personal Finan- Parke, C. S., & Lane, S. (2008). Examining alignment be- cial Literacy. tween state performance assessment and mathemat- Leet, D. R., & Lopus, J. S. (2003). A review of high school ics classroom activities. Journal of Educational Re- economics textbooks. Omaha: University of Nebras- search, 101(3), 132-147. ka-Omaha Center for Economic Education. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Lin, Q., & Lee, J. (2004). Consumer information search Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a when making investment decisions. Financial Ser- building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vices Review, 13, 319-332. 19(1-3), 243-270. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analyses Peng, T.-C. M. (2008). Evaluating mandated personal with missing data. New York: John Wiley and Sons. finance education in high schools. The Ohio State Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2007). Baby Boomer re- University, Columbus. tirement security: The roles of planning, financial literacy, and housing wealth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 54(1), 205-224.

32 Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 Peng, T.-C. M., Bartholomae, S., Fox, J. J., & Cravener, G. (2007). The impact of personal finance education de- livered in high school and college courses. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(2), 265-284. Rutan, T. D. (2008). Financial literacy implementation committee report. Columbus: Ohio Department of Education. Servon, L. J., & Kaestner, R. (2008). Consumer financial literacy and the impact of online banking on the fi- nancial behavior of lower-income bank customers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(Summer), 271-305. Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic de- partments in secondary schools. Washington: The Falmer Press. Spader, J., Ratcliffe, J., Montoya, J., & Skillern, P. (2009). The bold and the bankable: How the Nuestro Barrio telenovela reaches Latino immi- grants with financial education. Journal of Consum- er Affairs, 43(Spring), 56-79. Tennyson, S., & Nguyen, C. (2001). State curriculum man- dates and student knowledge of personal finance. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(21), 241-262. Tufano, P. (2009). Consumer finance. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 1(1), 227-247. Willis, L. E. (2008). Against financial-literacy education. Iowa Law Review, 94(1), 197-285. Willis, L. E. (2009). Evidence and ideology in assessing the effectiveness of financial literacy education.San Diego Law Review, 46(2), 415-458.

Acknowledgment This research was funded by a generous grant from the P-12 Project at The Ohio State University.

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1 2013 33